Wikipedia talk:How Wikipedia notability works

Multiple linking of Wp:Notability is deliberate and needed

Multiple linking of Wp:Notability is deliberate and needed to make an important distinction each time that the term is used. "WP:notability" refers to the overall wp:notability ecosystem, and WP:Notability refers to that specific page. North8000 (talk) 15:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Per suggestion below, the unlinked "WP:notability" has been renamed to "Wiki-notability" North8000 (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Development of post for wp:notability talk page

A possible wp:notability decoder ring?

For about 9 months (starting at the time of our efforts to clarify the Wp:notability guideline with respect to SNG's) I've been working on an essay regarding how Wikipedia notability works; it is Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works. It recognizes that a part of the reason that wp:notability is often unclear is that rather than being contained largely within one guideline or policy, it is an ecosystem consisting of multiple guidelines, established practices and values, venues and other pages. It also recognizes that in addition to sourcing, the wp:notability ecosystem acknowledges a second notability consideration which is more related to the real-world meaning of the term, but in an encyclopedic context. It also that notes that the WP:notability page has two functionally separate sections resulting in two different meanings for "GNG". It then details how such a summary resolves some common wp:notability quandaries.

I would like to (and might boldly) link it from this guideline. I would also invite careful evolution of it or any feedback there or here. I'm hoping that it might gain some prominence and with that the "make only careful consensused changes" status that comes with that. An essay with some prominence & stability might be a good place to include explanatory efforts. This would allow us the freedom to work on explaining such things without the complexities and constraints of putting them in this core guideline where they are "making rules". Finally, writing down all of the above the plus the de facto mission and definition of the notability ecosystem might help in efforts to clarify this core guideline.North8000 (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Request: make only careful changes

I've been working on this essay for 9 months and am hoping that this achieves status as a stable important essay. My request is to make only careful changes. Sincerely. North8000 (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Contradiction?

Let's say, for the purposes of establishing notability, an editor points to an article which relies entirely on an interview with a company founder and which was published in the New York Times. That editor says "significant coverage in reliable reputable independent source, meets GNG". Lets say that another editor points to WP:NCORP and says "nope, fails WP:ORGIND". For the purposes of this discussion, lets assume both editors are correctly reflecting community interpretation. Your essay suggests that so long as GNG is met, NCORP is irrelevant - is that intentional? HighKing⁺⁺ 15:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@HighKing: Sorry I missed your post....a belated response. My essay does not attempt to define or tidy up the rules that a herd of cats (the wp:notability ecosystem) follows, it is only to describe the motion of the herd. Which, BTW mostly moves OK. On your specific question, here's what the ecosystem does. You start with that the beginning of WP:notability says that if you meet GNG, that's all that you need....i.e. then the SNG is irrelevant. But the ecosystem notes that the tougher source criteria indicates a community intent to toughen source criteria for businesses. It resolves this apparent conflict by applying the tougher source criteria when determining GNG. or to use my term, the SNG sourcing criteria "calibrates" GNG. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:28, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

That's a tidy turn of phrase, I might borrow that. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion

Having the only difference between the terms for an entire "ecosystem" and for a specific page be a difference in capitalization makes for somewhat hard reading. Perhaps "Wp:notability" (the term for the whole ecosystem) could be replaced with something like "wiki-notability". XOR'easter (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@XOR'easter: Thanks. Good point, will do. North8000 (talk) 23:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Good idea

North8000: I feel like this essay should be better publicized; it's important. Too often people (including me) throw around words like SIGCOV, ORGIND, BASIC, SPORTSCRIT, NPROF, COWABUNGA—and often incorrectly. Anyway, one missing but important "common question" is the relationship of WP:NEVENT with the GNG, which I think could be expanded upon. Ovinus (talk) 03:17, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

@Ovinus: Thanks for the post. I think that it would be very useful to give this more prominence. I made a quick unsuccessful try to link it at wp:notability. We should try again if we get a few supporters. On you specific question, my essay does not attempt to define or tidy up the rules that a herd of cats (the wp:notability ecosystem) follows, it is only to describe the motion of the herd. Which, BTW mostly moves OK. On the question at hand, the ecosystems notes that events have a 1/2 strike against them under wp:not and so they et a tougher/stricter reading of GNG if the GNG "way in" is chosen. And the interpretation/debate gets influenced by the tougher SNG criteria. North8000 (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments

@North8000: I think that there are a lot of good points in this essay, but I do not think it should be a projectspace essay. Some comments:

• I really like the ecosystem approach, and the discussion of the deletion/notability space as "fuzzy". It would be nice to have that as a framing section at the beginning of the essay, before going in to your definitions.
• This essay—and some sentences and paragraphs—are quite long, there is a lot of wiki jargon, and some of the headings are a bit colloquial. I feel that this might confuse new editors looking for guidance on these issues.
• Has or is projected or believed to have sourcing available from which build a suitable article seems to contradict WP:CRYSTALBALL because it claims that a subject is notable so long as an editor "believe[s]" there might be some sources at some point in the future.
• Also, in the ecosystem, there is little or no support to consider meeting a SNG to be a permanent bypass of meeting a GNG-type sourcing requirement. Although I do not read (most of) the SNGs as allowing one to bypass the GNG, there is more than "little to no" support for that proposition. There have been several discussions about this in the past year alone at WT:NBIO in particular, and a consensus has yet to develop.
• "Is our practice on geographic inhabited places an exception to the framework described here?" reads as argumentative. I'm also not sure everyone would agree with your rationale (although I agree that our notability guidelines give short shrift to the gazetteer portion of the pillars). I think many people might argue that it's more of an IAR situation RE the notability guidelines.
• The final section, "Summary of relationship to WP:Not and the geographic item on WP:Five pillars", needs expansion. I don't think it fully accounts for the role WP:NOT plays in deletion discussions, particularly in the context of lists.

voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Voorts: Thank you so much for your compliments and critiques. I'm going to revise it with those in mind. A couple of specific notes:

• On your third bullet point, keeping in mind that this essay is intended to cover actual practice ("right" or "wrong", and whether I agree with it or not). I think I should take out the "future" aspects. I was intending to encompass the widespread SNG wording which says that those cases sources are presumed to exist. "Projected" could also refer to current tense (i.e. the SNG projects that they corrently exist) but now I think that that was a bad word to use.
• On your fourth bullet point, we might be saying the same thing rather than conflicting. IAR involves where other considerations override the rule. In my view, the fact that geographic inhabited places are ultra-enclyclopedic is that other consideration.
• On your last bullet point, notability regarding lists really isn't covered anywhere (yes, I know it's mentioned at wp:notability), and (as a sidebar) any other guidance on list articles (which might influence "notability" decisions) is minimal and scattered. While "notability" on other articles might be 70% based on notability guidelines and 30% on other considerations, there is near-nothing in notability guidelines on lists, and I really don't see notability decisions made on lists, so I didn't know how to cover actual practice regarding lists. I probably should add something along the lines of what is in the paragraph.

Thanks again. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• I think you need to clarify that this essay is intended to cover current actual practice at the outset. That wasn't clear to me going into the essay. I agree regarding removing "future" aspects. I think that muddies the waters a bit.
• To clarify: I disagree with your assessment that very few people believe SNGs can override the need for SIGCOV in RSes. There is—at the very least—a vocal minority who believes that meeting an SNG is sufficient to keep an article no matter what. In particular, this arises at AfD discussions regarding people who have been awarded knighthoods and other honours in the British system.
• My point was that people regularly cite NOTDB and others of the NOTs in AfD discussions about lists. I think they're used less regularly at AfD on articles. In any event, I still think that section needs much more fleshing out.

voorts (talk/contributions) 01:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)